Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2023, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Officers advised of a correction to the table on page 10 of the agenda, which should state that two representations had been received.  Since the publication of the agenda it was confirmed that Natural England had no objections to the application.

 

RESOLVED:   That the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    Standard time limits condition;

2.    Plans condition listing approved drawings (GR1);

3.    External facing materials (GR1);

4.    Access provision (C1);

5.    Existing and proposed site and finished floor levels (GR1);

6.    Submission and agreement of drainage scheme (HE9);

7.    Construction Environmental Management Plan (HW1, HE9);

8.    Details in relation to wildlife protection (HE1);

9.    Protection of nesting birds (HE1);

10. Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) for amphibians / reptiles and hedgehogs (HE1); and

11. Site waste management (WM8).

 

 

 

 

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Officers advised of a correction to the table on page 20 of the agenda, which should state that 7 representations had been received.

 

Following publication of the AB Update List, it was noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has now confirmed that they agree with the principles of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and discussed drainage strategy but required modelling of the watercourse prior to commencement, as detailed in the update.  They also requested that an updated drainage strategy be submitted prior to commencement, based on those principles discussed, as detailed in the update.  It was noted that this response has removed the requirement for Officer delegation for this issue.

 

Officers highlighted the objection made by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which was due to the site falling within the inner/middle hazardous zone of the Sabic Trans Pennine Ethylene Pipeline, but the objection was not in relation to housing.  The HSE 21 day call in notice was explained.

 

It was noted therefore that Officer delegation was requested in relation to the HSE call in procedure.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Dixon, a representative of the Applicant.  He stated the following inter alia:

 

·         The scheme of 59 affordable dwellings would provide a valuable contribution to Halton’s housing needs;

·         Modern methods of construction would be used; contributing to reduced living costs for residents;

·         A native planting scheme and natural play areas will be incorporated, adding a sense of community;

·         The site was adjacent to the Town Hall Park;

·         The scheme is led by the landscape of the park and includes hedgerows and natural habitats in line with policy requirements;

·         The scheme was carefully designed to include landscaped areas; and

·         The scheme will consist of 100% affordable housing.

 

Further clarity was given regarding the HSE’s response to the proximity of the pipeline.

 

The Committee agreed that the application be approved.

 

RESOLVED:  That authority is delegated to the Operational Director – Planning, Policy and Transportation, to determine the application in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the Committee, following the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues relating to the HSE call in procedure.

 

Upon satisfactory resolution, the application is to be approved subject to the following:

 

a)    S106 Agreement that secures affordable housing;

 

b)    schedule of conditions set out below; and

 

c)    that if the S106 Agreement is not signed within a reasonable period of time, authority is given to refuse this planning application.

 

Recommended conditions as follows with any additional conditions recommended through the resolution of the flood and drainage strategy to be added to the list below:

 

1.    Standard 3 year permission;

2.    Condition specifying plans;

3.    Bird nesting boxes scheme;

4.    Ecological conditions (such as RAMS and hedgehog highway);

5.    Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP);

6.    Lighting scheme;

7.    Vehicle access and parking to be constructed prior to commencement of use;

8.    External materials;

9.    Drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

An adjournment was requested by the Legal Advisor so that advice could be provided to Councillor Davidson, regarding her declarations.

 

Councillor Davidson did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as she has campaigned against further development in the area prior to being elected as a Councillor and had addressed the Committee as a speaker in opposition of the application.  Following her address she moved to the public gallery.

 

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Councillor Leck advised the Committee that in her capacity as a colleague of Mike Amesbury MP, she had attended meetings as a note taker where the application was discussed but would make her decision on the planning merits, after hearing all the evidence and without bias or predetermination.

 

Since the publication of the agenda one further letter of representation had been received relating to access to the site and who would make the decision on this – these were addressed in the report.  The Applicant had provided clarification on the statement made on page 87 regarding the adverse impact on primary school places – this is provided in the published AB Update List. 

 

It was noted that condition number 17 had been updated to: Submission and implementation of a scheme detailing bridleway provision including crossing points, to connect with, and complete, existing infrastructure provision as per the Sandymoor SPD.  Officers advised of a correction to the report – reference to access parameters plan at varying parts of the report should be Rev Q throughout and not Rev N.

 

Mr Cove, representative for Homes England, addressed the Committee.   He advised that Homes England (HE) was the Government's housing regeneration Agency.  He added inter alia that:

 

·         Homes England's investment was historic and this development was a long standing priority;

·         Public consultation had been carried out and HE had addressed concerns raised where possible, which had been documented in the Officer's report;

·         This application was outline with reserved matters;

·         The proposal would provide 250 high quality sustainable homes making a significant contribution to Halton's housing needs;

·         The proposal would provide new public open spaces;

·         £220k S106 monies were agreed for indoor sports provision; and

·         The scheme complied with all planning policies.

 

Councillor Davidson then addressed the Committee in her capacity as Daresbury, Moore and Sandymoor Ward Councillor.  She spoke of concerns raised by local residents in relation to the proposals as follows inter alia:

 

·         Climate change was a big issue and should be taken into consideration;

·         Green spaces should be protected and brownfield sites developed instead;

·         The area was used by walkers, cyclists and contained a variety of habitats and wildlife;

·         The plans would see an increase in traffic volume and there was only one road in and one road out of the site;

·         There would be an increased demand for school places and NHS services; and

·         The proposal was unsuitable in an already developed area.

 

During debate the following areas of concern were raised and responded to:

 

·         The withdrawal of the Sandymoor bus service – S106 money will be available to ‘kickstart’ a bus service but it was up to the operator to continue with this;

·         Primary School provision – a Primary School is included on the Masterplan for Sandymoor; the need for this has to be demonstrated;

·         Flood risks in the area being exacerbated by further development – a Flood Risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Thompson did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as he has met with both the applicant and objectors to the proposals and is also the local Ward Councillor for Halton Lea.  He moved to the public gallery.

Councillor Davidson did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as she has previously met with residents and campaigned against the proposals prior to being elected as a Councillor.  She removed to the public gallery.

 The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Councillor Leck advised the Committee that in her capacity as a colleague of Mike Amesbury MP, she had attended meetings as a note taker where the application was discussed but would make her decision on the planning merits, after hearing all the evidence and without bias or predetermination.

 

Councillor Chris Loftus advised the Committee that although his wife, Councillor Kath Loftus, was speaking on the application today, he would determine the application on the planning merits, after hearing all the evidence and without bias and predetermination.

 

Since the publication of the agenda a request to speak had been received – the points of objection were outlined in the published AB Update List.  Members noted the corrections, one for each application, on pages 406/407 and on page 414 – also detailed in the AB Update List.  There were also changes to recommendations for each application and two additional conditions for 23/00128/FUL – all detailed on the AB Update List.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Davidson, a resident of The Uplands for 40 years, who spoke in objection to the application for the following reasons:

 

·         He objected to the relocation of Palacefields Community Centre and the demolition of the Bethesda Church and the proposal that they are replaced by a joint/shared church and community centre building;

·         The Community Centre is at the heart of the community and is used by a wide range of groups;

·         The current Community Centre has a large outdoor space for children and activities to take place such as the summer fete; this would be lost;

·         Bethesda Church is a consecrated building and provides worshipers with a weekly service as well as conducting weddings, funerals and hosts a food bank;

·         The activities currently held at the Church could not take place in a shared facility;

·         Some people have reservations about entering a Church that will be used for community purposes; and

·         Riverside had promised that they were going to build a replacement church first before demolishing the current one; however, it appears that this is not the case so people would have no place to worship.

 

Mr Pemberton, a representative of the Applicant, then addressed the Committee, he provided the following information inter alia:

 

·         The Riverside Group was a Charity Status Housing Association and explained its strategy to transform the wider Palacefields Estate;

·         A description of the site and full planning application before the Committee;

·         Details of the listed buildings proposals – which were agreed with Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer;

·         Proposals to acquire the heritage assets which are currently in a dangerous condition and encouraged anti-social behaviour;

·         The development would enhance the visual and landscape setting of the listed buildings which would included a new play and public space at the heart of the new community;

·         Details of the replacement Church and the benefits it will offer;

·         Details of the proposed dwellings (mix of types  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The following Appeals had been received / were in progress:

 

22/00019/PLD

Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a proposed use of development for the installation of a solar farm (ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels) at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, land bounded by Dungeon Lane, Hale Road and Baileys Lane, to the East of Liverpool John Lennon Airport Speke, Liverpool, L24 1YD.

 

21/00016/OUT

Outline application, with all matters other than access reserved for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings and four detached dwellings on the existing church field and the retention of the existing scout hut at Hough Green Scout and Guide Group Hall and Church Field, Hall Avenue, Widnes.

 

The following Appeals had been determined:

 

22/00285/ADV & 22/00284/FUL

The retrospective application for planning consent for the installation of a car park management system on existing car park comprising 4 no. pole mounted automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras and 6 no. park and display machines at Car Park at Green Oaks Shopping Centre, Widnes, WA8 6UA – Appeals allowed